• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

Trausti said:
I support free speech. Tell you how I don't support free speech. No more handwaving.
Click to expand...

This is interesting: you are taking your support of Free Speech as the Premise, not the Conclusion.

But the Premise is False, as you Test what is is fit for sue as Free Speech and what is not - just because you consider it as self-evident what is not (and you might be right) doesn't mean that you are not doing the Testing.

So, in fact, your are for Conditional Free Speech, not Absolute Free Speech.
 
This deserves some clarity.

Even strong advocates of free speech usually do not object to suppression of content that traditionally falls outside of first amendment protections. CP, threats of violence, libel, and so forth.

The question is whether Twitter goes beyond that to censor according to what its owner prefers, and I think the answer is yes.
 
as the owner of a media company, censorship can be a lot more subtle than that.

What if the one in charge speedily addresses Content Violations of one sort, but slow walks violations of another sort?
The effect is the same as if one type got free reign and the other censored, even if on paper both are judged equally by their content moderation rules.
 
gnome said:
This deserves some clarity.

Even strong advocates of free speech usually do not object to suppression of content that traditionally falls outside of first amendment protections. CP, threats of violence, libel, and so forth.

The question is whether Twitter goes beyond that to censor according to what its owner prefers, and I think the answer is yes.
Click to expand...

Need to be careful with that premise, X falls outside the USA's concept of free speech.

As an example, in the USA going to work in an orange shirt can get you sacked if your employer thinks it's some form of political expression, in countries with wider free speech protections that isn't allowed.
 
Samson said:
Just checking some above posts, "cis" is not just a slur, it is a raging insult. Musk is absolutely right to ban it's use if he so chooses. He has some very personal skin in that decision.
Click to expand...

No one argues he has no right, but you might want to consider what “free speech” actually means to this man who considers himself an absolutist. I won’t bother trying to appeal to you about this as you have already gone on record as being a cheerleader for shameless hypocrisy.

That’s all fine. For many it is a football game and claiming to have principles is nothing more than posturing. Elon Musk has none and you have none.
 
He claims to believe in free speech but the T&Cs of X and his actions in running X shows he does not believe in free speech on X.

The issue with Brasil has nothing to do with free speech so one is wondering why it is being raised in a discussion about X operating illegally in Brasil?
 
Trausti said:
He must believe in free speech as he's taken quite a financial hit to support it. Or by "free speech" do you mean by not censoring speech you don't like?
Click to expand...

Your memory is short. Musk did not pay over the odds for Twitter so he could champion free speech. He paid over the odds for Twitter because he was trying to manipulate the stock price to make some money and he got caught out by Twitter having excellent lawyers.

If you recall, Musk did not want or expect to buy Twitter at all. He waived due diligence and had to be taken to court to force him to honour the contract he signed.

He doesn't care about free speech. He only cares about his own speech. He regularly has people censored on Twitter if they disagree with him. He does the Chinese government's bidding because they have figured out he also has a car company that needs the Chinese market.
 
Samson said:
Just checking some above posts, "cis" is not just a slur, it is a raging insult. Musk is absolutely right to ban it's use if he so chooses. He has some very personal skin in that decision.
Click to expand...

yeah, his actions due to his personal feelings are frequently at odds with his free speech claims. this thread has article after article linked of examples.

its you guys who keep insisting he's some kind of free speech advocate, and even when you admit that's not the case like you just did in this post, you'll go right back to saying it.

and you guys will continue this dishonesty over and over as you've done before.
you guys are barely worth interacting with on it at this point
 
Samson said:
Just checking some above posts, "cis" is not just a slur, it is a raging insult. Musk is absolutely right to ban it's use if he so chooses. He has some very personal skin in that decision.
Click to expand...

But he's ok with words that are slurs and raging insults directed at trans, blacks and Muslims?

He censors posts in Turkey and India at the request of the governments of those countries.
 
Trausti said:
I support free speech. Tell me how I don't support free speech. No more handwaving.
Click to expand...

If Elon is such a supporter of free speech, why does he ban and censor accounts in Turkey and India at the request of those countries governments?
 
@jeremyp
TBH, I'm not even sure how much more he could possibly manipulate the share price.

The biggest jump in stock value was when he had bought those 9.2% of the shares, starting with a jump of about 25% and ending up about 27% over the previous share price. Then it started to decline. Between his announcement that he wants to buy it, and Twitter accepting, it barely rose back to about the level from after he bought those shares.

AND his offer included a 1 billion penalty if he backed out, which he probably thought would be the only money he'd lose for the stunt. Turned out, it didn't work that way.

BUT even more importantly, remember this wouldn't be the only stock he stood to win or lose from. The kerfuffle promptly caused the price of Tesla stock to drop, lowering his own worth by about 30 billion dollars.

So, yeah, I'm seriously not sure how much more he thought he could manipulate Twitter share price to make up even for that 1 billion penalty.


TL;DR: I think even you give him way more credit than he deserves. I seriously think he's a clown who tried to pull a stunt that would give him publicity. The guy seems seriously more obsessed with being in everyone's mind all the time than Tinkerbell.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
@jeremyp
TBH, I'm not even sure how much more he could possibly manipulate the share price.
The biggest jump in stock value was when he had bought those 9.2% of the shares, starting with a jump of about 25% and ending up about 27% over the previous share price. Then it started to decline. Between his announcement that he wants to buy it, and Twitter accepting, it barely rose back to about the level from after he bought those shares.

AND his offer included a 1 billion penalty if he backed out, which he probably thought would be the only money he'd lose for the stunt. Turned out, it didn't work that way.

BUT even more importantly, remember this wouldn't be the only stock he stood to win or lose from. The kerfuffle promptly caused the price of Tesla stock to drop, lowering his own worth by about 30 billion dollars.

So, yeah, I'm seriously not sure how much more he thought he could manipulate Twitter share price to make up even for that 1 billion penalty.


TL;DR: I think even you give him way more credit than he deserves. I seriously think he's a clown who tried to pull a stunt that would give him publicity. The guy seems seriously more obsessed with being in everyone's mind all the time than Tinkerbell.
Click to expand...

Twitter is a private company, no? That means it doesn't have a share price, no?
 
Even "private company" only means it's not listed on a public exchange, actually. You can still trade them privately, and owning x% of a private company can still be put into dollars.

But Twitter was very much a publicly traded company at the time. They had been since 2013.
 
Last edited:
Trausti said:
In North Korea you can be sentenced to years of hard labor if you watch South Korean dramas. Any government which tries to limit what its people can read/view/hear is by definition fascist and not democratic.
Click to expand...

Thus the entire EU plus Canada, and for that matter Microsoft and Apple are all fascists for banning Kremlin mouthpiece RT over the invasion of Ulraine.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Am I the last to hear about this? When did it become a slur?
Click to expand...

When Samson realised Musk supported absolute free speech, and thus anything posted on Twitter should be allowed, so he supports absolute free speech also.

But also posts on Twitter that cross his or Musk's own arbitrary line are for some reason no longer free speech, and thus he nor Musk doesn't support absolute free speech at all.

But he doesn't like to think about these two contradictory positions, because the cognitive dissonance makes his brain hurt.

So he pretends he is still for absolute free speech, whilst obviously not supporting absolute free speech.

Classic Samson!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom